Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 319 (495237)
01-21-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
01-21-2009 6:06 PM


you could have conceded explicitly
I see you avoided the entire point of my post which was the refutation your interpretation of Gen 4 and Gen 5 talking about 2 different Adams.
I'll take that as a concession.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 6:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 12:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 257 of 319 (495307)
01-22-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
01-21-2009 6:17 PM


Re: you could have conceded explicitly
Hi CS
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'll take that as a concession.
You'll have to take it I didn't give one.
You have not made a case yet.
When you prove the man in Genesis 2:7 was made in the image/likeness of God I will conceed the point that they are the same man.
Or if you can prove the man in Genesis 1:27 was formed from the dust of the ground I will conceed the point they are the same man.
You are the one claiming they are the same man prove it.
If the tap dance you do about both having a son named Seth is all you got forget it.
That argument is a waste of time, although it takes no effort.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-21-2009 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2009 10:20 AM ICANT has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 258 of 319 (495356)
01-22-2009 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by ICANT
01-20-2009 8:32 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
If that is the best you can do no wonder you have so much trouble with what the Bible says.
Says the man who thinks that a passage dozens of sentences later is the logical next step rather than the sentence that immediately follows; who thinks that Genesis is a story told by a four-year-old that immediately wanders off onto a tangent.
I notice you don't add anything new. Do you have anything to say to the generally understood conclusion that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by two different authors?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2009 8:32 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 259 of 319 (495357)
01-22-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by ICANT
01-20-2009 9:08 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Genesis 1:1 does not say IT IS THE BEGINNING.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Please explain how "beginning" doesn't actually mean...well..."beginning." "In the beginning" actually means "after the beginning"?
quote:
So whenever the beginning was.
Indeed, and what happened when that beginning happened? That's right...god created the heavens and the earth. And he started by first creating light, dividing the light from the darkness, creating day and night, and thus the evening and the morning were the first day.
But according to you, we need to skip over all that and go to passages that are dozens of sentences later. We are, after all, four-year-olds who can't maintain a narrative beyond a single sentence, so all of that description of what god does "in the beginning" isn't really a description of what god does "in the beginning."
quote:
God created, not that He was going to create but already had.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
In the morning, I got up. I wasn't already up. If I were already up, then it wouldn't have been "in the morning" that I got up. It would have been some time even previous to that. The phrase specifically locates in time when god created and that was "in the beginning." Not before the beginning, not after, but right there at the beginning. That's why you say, "In the beginning."
But, considering that you think "beginning" doesn't actually mean "beginning," then I'm not surprised. You've already admitted that you have abandoned the text. Why should there be any shock that you think that "beginning" means "after"?
quote:
They were in existence before Genesis 1:2
How could that be when we're at the beginning and thus there is no "before"? Oh, that's right..."beginning" doesn't actually mean "beginning." It means "later."
quote:
the earth had become formless and empty.
Incorrect. It couldn't "become" because it didn't exist yet. It wouldn't be created until the third day:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
[...]
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
The point behind saying "without form and void" is to say that it didn't exist. That's what "void" means.
, ‘, , —- ; —, —- . 2
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
"Unformed," ICANT. Not "became." Rather, a direct statement that it didn't exist at all.
But since you admit you've abandoned the text, this is not surprising.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2009 9:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 8:13 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 260 of 319 (495358)
01-22-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
01-21-2009 4:49 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
There is no word in the text with the meaning of was.
The Hebrew word that was translated was means 1) to be, become, come to pass,
Incorrect. Logical error of equivocation. You are trying to say that because a word has multiple meanings, then any meaning it might possibly have is an appropriate interpretation in complete denial of context, conjugation, etc.
Indeed, "hayah" can mean "to become." One can find many passages with this meaning:
Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
"To be" in that passage is the same verb, "hayah." And here it means "to become."
I should point out that this passage is another one where one must be careful of equivocation. The word before "hayah" in this passage, "chalal," translated as "began," most commonly means "to profane," "defile," "desecrate." But it also means "begin," which is why this phrase is translated as "began to be" rather than "became profaned." "He defiled himself as a mighty one of the earth"? That makes no sense.
So for you to insist that the phrase in Gen 1:2 means "became" is you forcing your preconceived notion on the text. Context clearly indicates that the phrasing is not "became," but rather "was." And, indeed, "hayah" can mean "to be."
Note, the conjugation of "hayah" in this use is of the perfect. That means a state of ending. If there were a continuation, then you wouldn't use the perfect but rather the imperfect. English doesn't really use the imperfect, but a close approximation is the difference between "closed" and "closing." "Closed" indicates that there is no action taking place. "Closing" indicates that the action is ongoing.
"Hayah" is derived from the root word "to breathe," and thus its connection to life and therefore existence: "To be." By using the perfect form of "hayah" in describing the state of existence of the earth, the interpretation cannot be that the earth had "become" formless but that it didn't exist. It "was" formless, not "became" formless.
Especially since the adjective used to describe the earth, "tohuw," specifically means non-existence, nothingness, emptiness, unreality.
So even if we go with your interpretation that when Gen 1:1 says "beginning," it is really meaning "later," we don't come up with your interpretation: Any existence of the universe before Gen 1:2 completely and utterly vanished in all ways and respects.
If there were anything (and the text clearly states there wasn't), it was erased. The universe was rebooted from scratch. Ergo, it doesn't matter what came before. There is no trace of it.
Thus, the universe that we have today is the one that was created in six literal days as described in Genesis 1 with whales coming before land mammals in contradiction to biology, water existing before dry land in contradiction to geology, and the earth existing before the stars in contradiction to astronomy.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 4:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 9:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 261 of 319 (495359)
01-22-2009 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
01-21-2009 6:06 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
I have always argued that the Hebrew word should have been translated became or came to be.
Since Judaism doesn't interpret "hayah" in this context to mean "become," why do you think you know more than they do? Are you saying Jews don't know their own religious text?
Perfect tense, meaning "became" is not an appropriate interpretation. "Nothingness," which means there was nothing to transition from as the earth was without existence.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 6:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 9:10 PM Rrhain has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5040 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 262 of 319 (495368)
01-22-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
01-21-2009 6:06 PM


What original text?
I have said the original text was inerrant.
Another great example of your delusion.
How on Earth can you possibly make this claim when:
A) There are no original texts.
B) When the texts we do have are heavily edited.
c) There are many different varying texts of the same books.
As I have been saying, you do the Bible a disservice every day of your life.
I suppose I better support a claim here.
Look at the texts of The Septuagint, The Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic in regard to the ages of certain Biblical folk heroes, info is taken from the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (1962) page 581.
Tell me, what age was Lamech when he died? The LXX says 753, the SP says 653, and the MT says 777. So, which one of these is close to the original? What age was Lamech when he died in the original text?
Or, what about the time span between the creation of Adam and the Flood?
The LXX says it was 2242 years, the SP says it was 1307 years, and the MT says it was 1656 years!
So, same question, which of these is close to the original? How many years does the original text say there was betweenthe creation of Adam and the Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 6:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 10:13 PM Brian has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 319 (495393)
01-22-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by ICANT
01-22-2009 12:20 AM


Re: you could have conceded explicitly
When you prove the man in Genesis 2:7 was made in the image/likeness of God I will conceed the point that they are the same man.
The Adam in Gen 5 was created in the image of God.
quote:
Gen 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
This is the same Adam that is mentioned in Chapter 4.
quote:
Gen 4
25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
We know this because in Chapter 5, it lists the lineage of Adam's new seed Seth.
quote:
3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
It should be obvious that the Adam in Chapter 4 is the same as the Adam in Chapter 2.
Therefore, the Adam in Chapter 2 was created in the image of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 12:20 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 2:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 264 of 319 (495460)
01-22-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Rrhain
01-22-2009 3:27 AM


Hi Rrhain,
From message 258
Rrhain writes:
I notice you don't add anything new. Do you have anything to say to the generally understood conclusion that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by two different authors?
Every time I make a statement like that I am accused of appealing to authority.
I agree with the understood conclusion that one person was the author.
Rrhain writes:
quote:
Genesis 1:1 does not say IT IS THE BEGINNING.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Sure I did.
I can't help it if you can't read English.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That says in the beginning. When was that?
God...What did God do?
Created...What did God create?
the heaven and the earth.
It does not say God is going to create the heaven and the earth.
It does not say this is the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth.
Rrhain writes:
Indeed, and what happened when that beginning happened? That's right...god created the heavens and the earth. And he started by first creating light, dividing the light from the darkness, creating day and night, and thus the evening and the morning were the first day.
Huh,
If that is the case where did he create the light?
Rrhain writes:
But, considering that you think "beginning" doesn't actually mean "beginning," then I'm not surprised. You've already admitted that you have abandoned the text. Why should there be any shock that you think that "beginning" means "after"?
I don't have a problem with beginning meaning beginning.
I do have a problem with you telling me that there was nothing in existence until verse 3. There was no space, no water, no nothing according to you.
quote:
And he started by first creating light
Rrhain writes:
quote:
They were in existence before Genesis 1:2
How could that be when we're at the beginning and thus there is no "before"? Oh, that's right..."beginning" doesn't actually mean "beginning." It means "later."
This was in response to me saying the heaven and the earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2.
Genesis 1:1 says they were created.
Genesis 1:2 starts off with The earth.
Rrhain says:
Rrhain writes:
quote:
the earth had become formless and empty.
Incorrect. It couldn't "become" because it didn't exist yet. It wouldn't be created until the third day:
So the earth wasn't created until the third day, according to Rrhain.
So Rrhain when was the universe created for all these things to exist in as they were created?
Rrhain writes:
The point behind saying "without form and void" is to say that it didn't exist. That's what "void" means.
You are saying void means it didn't exist.
The Hebrew word ‘ definition 1) emptiness, void, waste.
That is the word translated void in Genesis 1:2. I don't see does not exist in there.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2009 3:27 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 7:30 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 265 of 319 (495467)
01-22-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Rrhain
01-22-2009 4:03 AM


Re equivocation
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
ICANT writes:
quote:
There is no word in the text with the meaning of was.
The Hebrew word that was translated was means 1) to be, become, come to pass,
Incorrect. Logical error of equivocation. You are trying to say that because a word has multiple meanings, then any meaning it might possibly have is an appropriate interpretation in complete denial of context, conjugation, etc.
Indeed, "hayah" can mean "to become." One can find many passages with this meaning:
I guess it could as that is the primary meaning of "hayah".
The Hebrew word appears 76 times is 72 verses.
It is translated was 5 times.
Here is all five times with strongs numbers.
Gen 1:2 And the earth 776 was 1961 (8804) without form 8414, and void 922; and darkness 2822 [was] upon the face 6440 of the deep 8415. And the Spirit 7307 of God 430 moved 7363 (8764) upon 5921 the face 6440 of the waters 4325.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent 5175 was 1961 (8804) more subtil 6175 than any beast 2416 of the field 7704 which the LORD 3068 God 430 had made 6213 (8804). And he said 559 (8799) unto the woman 802, Yea 637, hath God 430 said 559 (8804), Ye shall not eat 398 (8799) of every tree 6086 of the garden 1588?
Exd 5:13 And the taskmasters 5065 (8802) hasted 213 (8801) [them], saying 559 (8800), Fulfil 3615 (8761) your works 4639, [your] daily 3117 tasks 1697, as when there was 1961 (8800) straw 8401.
Jdg 20:3 (Now the children 1121 of Benjamin 1144 heard 8085 (8799) that the children 1121 of Israel 3478 were gone up 5927 (8804) to Mizpeh 4709.) Then said 559 (8799) the children 1121 of Israel 3478, Tell 1696 (8761) [us], how was 1961 (8738) this wickedness 7451?
Zec 8:10 For before 6440 these days 3117 there was 1961 (8738) no hire 7939 for man 120, nor any hire 7939 for beast 929; neither [was there any] peace 7965 to him that went out 3318 (8802) or came in 935 (8802) because of the affliction 6862: for I set 7971 (8762) all men 120 every one 376 against his neighbour 7453.
Rrhain writes:
So for you to insist that the phrase in Gen 1:2 means "became" is you forcing your preconceived notion on the text. Context clearly indicates that the phrasing is not "became," but rather "was." And, indeed, "hayah" can mean "to be."
I am glad you are willing to let the primary meaning of a word at least be the meaning of that word sometimes.
Just not when you want it to be something that suits your point of view.
Rrhain writes:
So even if we go with your interpretation that when Gen 1:1 says "beginning," it is really meaning "later," we don't come up with your interpretation: Any existence of the universe before Gen 1:2 completely and utterly vanished in all ways and respects.
Hold on there tiger.
I hold the universe and the earth were completed in Genesis chapter 1 and verse 1.
If there was no verse 2 it would not make any difference. The universe and the earth was in existence in a completed state at that moment.
So I don't care if there was absolutely nothing at Genesis 1:2 and God had to completely start over from scratch. That does not change the fact that the heaven and the earth existed at Genesis 1:1.
He could have had a big crunch for all I care except we know that did not happen.
Rrhain writes:
Thus, the universe that we have today is the one that was created in six literal days as described in Genesis 1
But you don't get the universe created at all.
According to Rrhain we get lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: verse 14.
We get two great lights sun and moon. verse 16.
All that stuff is in our Galaxy.
When did we get all the other stuff that is out there in the universe?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2009 4:03 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 8:03 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 266 of 319 (495468)
01-22-2009 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Rrhain
01-22-2009 4:07 AM


Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
Since Judaism doesn't interpret "hayah" in this context to mean "become," why do you think you know more than they do? Are you saying Jews don't know their own religious text?
Jesus told the Pharisees they didn't know the scriptures. Why should they be any better today?
Rrhain writes:
Perfect tense, meaning "became" is not an appropriate interpretation. "Nothingness," which means there was nothing to transition from as the earth was without existence.
But the earth existed in Genesis 1:1.
The earth existed in Genesis 1:2 as it starts with "and the earth".
But no according to Rrhain's interpertation nothing existed until light was called for in Genesis 1:3.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2009 4:07 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2009 11:09 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 276 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 8:14 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 267 of 319 (495474)
01-22-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Brian
01-22-2009 6:23 AM


Re: What original text?
Hi Brian,
Brian writes:
Tell me, what age was Lamech when he died?
First I would have to know which Lamech you are talking about.
Are you talking about the Lamech in Genesis 4:18:
Man formed from the dust of the ground had a son named Cain, who had a son named Enoch, who had a son named Irad, who had a son named Mehujael, who had a son named Methusael, who had a son named Lamech the husband of Adah and Zillah, father of sons, Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain, and daughter, Naamah.
No record of age or death of any of these.
Cain did kill Abel and Lamech killed a man.
But since none of them are here today they lived only part of one light period of the day that ended in Genesis 1:5 when God declared the evening of that light period and the following morning the first day.
Or are you talking about the Lamech in Genesis 5:25.
The man who was created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:26, 27. Had a son named Seth, who had a son named Enos, who had a son named Cainan, who had a son named Mahalaleel, who had a son named Jared, who had a son named Enoch, who had a son named Methuselah, who had a son named Lamech, who had a son named Noah.
So apparantly you are talking about this Lamech, Noah's father.
Now as to your question which one is the closest to the original, I would say probably the LXX as it was closer to the events in question.
But they all are probably wrong.
Brian writes:
A) There are no original texts.
Did I say there was original manuscripts available today.
That doesn't mean they did not exist in the past and those are inerrant.
We do have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies etc.
That is the reason when Jesus left He sent the Holy Spirit to lead His followers in all truth.
Paul reminded us we need the Spirit to lead us:
I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Brian, posted 01-22-2009 6:23 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Brian, posted 01-23-2009 11:35 AM ICANT has not replied

harveyranderson
Junior Member (Idle past 5624 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-23-2009


Message 268 of 319 (495492)
01-23-2009 1:26 AM


twenty-four hour day or one thousand year day?
The Bible does not say how long the earth was in existence before the creation.
The days of creation were one thousand years each (seven Thousand years).
Adam was told by God that if he ate of the forbidden fruit that he would die that day.
Since a day is a thousand years, and no man has lived a thousand years, Adam did die in that day.
Adam lived 930 years - "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." (Gen 5:5)
Seth lived 912 years - "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died." (Gen 5:8)
Methuselah lived 969 years - "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died." (Gen 5:27)
Edited by harveyranderson, : spelling error

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 8:28 PM harveyranderson has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 269 of 319 (495495)
01-23-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by New Cat's Eye
01-22-2009 10:20 AM


Re: Same Adam
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
The Adam in Gen 5 was created in the image of God.
True.
Catholic Scientist writes:
This is the same Adam that is mentioned in Chapter 4.
False.
Catholic Scientist writes:
It should be obvious that the Adam in Chapter 4 is the same as the Adam in Chapter 2.
True.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Therefore, the Adam in Chapter 2 was created in the image of God.
False.
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The Bible says this man was formed from the dust of the ground.
The Bible says God breathed the breath of life into that form.
The Bible says that man became a living being.
No where does it say he was created.
No where does it say he was created in the image/likeness of God.
Just a few other things about this man.
He was placed in a garden.
This was before any animals were formed.
This man was forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
This was before woman was cloned from one of his ribs.
This man named all the animals.
This man was never told to be fruitful and multiply.
This man was kicked out of the garden for disobedience.
This man and woman had a son named Cain who killed his brother Abel.
BTW There was no water creatures.
Now the man created in Genesis 1:27, the man of Genesis 5:1
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Man and woman created at the same time.
They were created after all animals, plants, fowl, and water creatures.
They were told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
They were never placed in a garden.
The man was never forbidden to eat any fruit. In fact he was told he could eat of all the trees.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
This man and woman never had a son named Cain or Abel.
So no CS you are a long way from proving that the man formed from the dust of the earth in Genesis 2:7 was created in the image of God.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2009 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2009 11:05 AM ICANT has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 319 (495550)
01-23-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by ICANT
01-23-2009 2:37 AM


Re: Same Adam
Here’s how you interpretation goes:
You start with:
quote:
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
And compare that to:
quote:
5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
to conclude they are the same man (which makes sense)
Then you compare:
quote:
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
to say that this is a different man (which also makes sense).
But when we get to the end of Chapter 4:
quote:
4:25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
And the beginning of Chapter 5:
quote:
5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos
We see that this is the same man as Chapter 4, which makes it the same man as Chapter 1.
So the interpretation that the one in Chapter 2 is different than the one in Chapter 1 cannot be correct.
But the only way that you can argue against this is to use circular reasoning by going back to the beginning by starting with:
quote:
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
And comparing that to:
quote:
5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
to conclude they are the same man
Then you compare:
quote:
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
to say that this is a different man.
Do you not see how this is circular reasoning?
You do not have any other reasoning to conclude that the men in Chapters 4 and 5 are different other than your premise that they must be different from comparing Chapter 1 and 2 with Chapter 5.
That is fallacious logic, ICANT.
So the only defense of your position is to twist the text to fit you pre-conceived notion that they are different.
You shouldn't change the meaning of the text to fit your interpretation, you should change your interpretation to fit the meaning of the text.
What you are doing is dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 2:37 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024